B-170927, APR 14, 1971

B-170927: Apr 14, 1971

Additional Materials:

Contact:

YOUR REQUEST WAS ASSIGNED PDTATAC CONTROL NO. 70-46. PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE ORDER COMMANDER ROBINSON WAS DETACHED FROM DUTY WITH THE BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL. MESSING FACILITIES OR OFFICER'S OPEN MESS WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THAT HEADQUARTERS. DURING THAT PERIOD AND THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT THE TEMPORARY DUTY AND COMMUTING TIME FROM AND TO HIS DUTY STATION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IN 10 HOURS EACH DAY. YOU SAY THAT WHILE THAT DECISION IS NOT FOR APPLICATION IN COMMANDER ROBINSON'S CASE SINCE HE WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE STILL ATTACHED TO THE BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL AFTER MARCH 6. YOU HAVE EXPRESSED DOUBT REGARDING PAYMENT OF THE PER DIEM AS CLAIMED FOR THE REASON THAT THE ABOVE DECISION IMPLIED THAT OUR DECISION OF APRIL 5.

B-170927, APR 14, 1971

PER DIEM-ALLOWANCE - TEMPORARY DUTY STATION DECISION ALLOWING PAYMENT OF PER DIEM TO COMMANDER DUANE A. ROBINSON, USN, INCIDENT TO TEMPORARY DUTY. MEMBER WHO DETACHED FROM DUTY IN ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA AT NOON MARCH 6, 1970, AND REPORTED FOR TEMPORARY DUTY IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AT 1 P.M., MARCH 6, 1970, TO ATTEND A REQUIRED COURSE OF INSTRUCTION FROM MARCH 9 TO 13, 1970, BUT DID NOT CHANGE HIS RESIDENCE IN ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, MAY BE PAID PER DIEM, BECAUSE THE TIME OF HIS DAILY ROUND TRIP FROM HIS RESIDENCE OUTSIDE THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF HIS DUTY STATION TO HIS TEMPORARY DUTY STATION EXCEEDED 10-HOURS. SEE B-170964, APRIL 14, 1971, MODIFYING 35 COMP. GEN. 547.

TO LIEUTENANT W. E. KENNEDY:

IN YOUR LETTER DATED MAY 28, 1970, FILE REFERENCE MT:WEK:AB, FORWARDED HERE BY 4TH INDORSEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 1970, OF THE PER DIEM, TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE COMMITTEE, YOU REQUEST AN ADVANCE DECISION CONCERNING THE PROPRIETY OF PAYMENT OF PER DIEM TO COMMANDER DUANE A. ROBINSON, 588363, USN, INCIDENT TO TEMPORARY DUTY PERFORMED BY HIM DURING THE PERIOD MARCH 9 TO 12, 1970. YOUR REQUEST WAS ASSIGNED PDTATAC CONTROL NO. 70-46.

BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL ORDER 040586, DATED JANUARY 30, 1970, PROVIDED FOR COMMANDER ROBINSON, WHEN DIRECTED IN MARCH, TO BE DETACHED FROM HIS DUTY STATION AND DIRECTED HIM TO REPORT TO NAVAL SECURITY GROUP HEADQUARTERS, WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR TEMPORARY DUTY OF ABOUT ONE WEEK TO ATTEND A CLASS COMMENCING MARCH 9, 1970. THE ORDER ALSO DIRECTED HIM TO REPORT TO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, FOR TWO DESIGNATED ADDITIONAL COURSES ON SPECIFIED DATES AND UPON COMPLETION THEREOF AND WHEN DIRECTED TO PROCEED TO THE PORT IN WHICH COMMANDER CRUISER DESTROYER FLOTILLA NINE WOULD BE AND REPORT FOR DUTY ON ARRIVAL.

PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE ORDER COMMANDER ROBINSON WAS DETACHED FROM DUTY WITH THE BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, NAVY ANNEX, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, AT NOON, MARCH 6, 1970. HE REPORTED FOR TEMPORARY DUTY AT THE NAVAL SECURITY GROUP HEADQUARTERS, WASHINGTON, D.C., AT 1 P.M., MARCH 6, 1970, AND ATTENDED THE REQUIRED COURSE OF INSTRUCTION FROM MARCH 9 TO 13, 1970. GOVERNMENT QUARTERS, MESSING FACILITIES OR OFFICER'S OPEN MESS WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THAT HEADQUARTERS.

IN HIS CLAIM VOUCHER COMMANDER ROBINSON SHOWED THAT DURING THE PERIOD MARCH 9 TO 12 HE COMMUTED FROM HIS HOME IN ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, TO THE NAVAL SECURITY GROUP HEADQUARTERS, WASHINGTON, D.C., A DISTANCE OF 15 MILES, BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE. HE LISTED THE TIME OF DEPARTURE FROM HOME ON EACH OF THE DAYS INVOLVED AS 7:00 A.M. AND THE TIME OF ARRIVAL AT HOME AS 5:30 P.M., OR A TOTAL TIME OF DAILY ROUND TRIP TRAVEL AND TEMPORARY DUTY OF 10-1/2 HOURS. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT COMMANDER ROBINSON MAINTAINED THE SAME RESIDENCE BEFORE AND DURING THIS PERIOD OF TEMPORARY DUTY.

IN YOUR LETTER OF MAY 28, 1970, YOU REFERRED TO OUR DECISION OF APRIL 16, 1965, B-156199, IN WHICH WE DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE MEMBER THERE INVOLVED FOR PER DIEM FOR A PERIOD OF TEMPORARY DUTY AT THE NAVY ANNEX, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, INASMUCH AS HE REMAINED ATTACHED TO HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION IN WASHINGTON, D.C., DURING THAT PERIOD AND THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT THE TEMPORARY DUTY AND COMMUTING TIME FROM AND TO HIS DUTY STATION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IN 10 HOURS EACH DAY, EVEN THOUGH THE TIME OF HIS DAILY ROUND TRIP TRAVEL FROM HIS RESIDENCE OUTSIDE THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF HIS DUTY STATION TO HIS TEMPORARY DUTY STATION EXCEEDED 10 HOURS.

YOU SAY THAT WHILE THAT DECISION IS NOT FOR APPLICATION IN COMMANDER ROBINSON'S CASE SINCE HE WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE STILL ATTACHED TO THE BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL AFTER MARCH 6, 1970, YOU HAVE EXPRESSED DOUBT REGARDING PAYMENT OF THE PER DIEM AS CLAIMED FOR THE REASON THAT THE ABOVE DECISION IMPLIED THAT OUR DECISION OF APRIL 5, 1956, 35 COMP. GEN. 547, WAS ALSO DETERMINED ON THAT BASIS. THAT DECISION INVOLVED MEMBERS WHO COMMUTED FROM THEIR PLACES OF ABODE AT THEIR OLD STATIONS TO PERFORM TEMPORARY DUTY AT A NEARBY LOCATION AFTER DETACHMENT FROM THEIR OLD STATIONS.

SINCE THOSE MEMBERS CONTINUED TO RESIDE AT THEIR OLD STATIONS AFTER DETACHMENT, WE HELD THAT WHEN THEY TRAVELED TO THE TEMPORARY DUTY STATION FOR TEMPORARY DUTY WHICH REQUIRED AN ABSENCE FROM THEIR OLD STATIONS FOR A PERIOD IN EXCESS OF 10 HOURS, THEY ENTERED A TRAVEL STATUS AND WERE ENTITLED TO PER DIEM FOR THE TEMPORARY DUTY PERFORMED THEREAFTER.

THE CLAIM OF COMMANDER ROBINSON IS SIMILAR TO THE CLAIM OF MAJOR JOHN M. SOLAN, USMC, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION OF TODAY, B 170964, TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL I. L. RAY, DISBURSING OFFICER, U.S. MARINE CORPS, A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THAT DECISION, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT COMMANDER ROBINSON ENTERED A TRAVEL STATUS WHEN HE WAS DETACHED FROM HIS OLD STATION IN ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, AND PROCEEDED TO HIS TEMPORARY DUTY STATION IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND HE IS ENTITLED TO THE PER DIEM OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED FOR SUCH TEMPORARY DUTY.

THE VOUCHER IS RETURNED FOR PAYMENT OF PER DIEM ON THE BASIS INDICATED ABOVE, IF OTHERWISE PROPER.

Mar 19, 2018

AMAR Health IT, LLCWe dismiss the protest because our Office does not have jurisdiction to entertain protests of task orders issued under civilian agency multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts that are valued at less than $10 million.

Mar 13, 2018

Interoperability ClearinghouseWe dismiss the protest because the protester, a not-for-profit entity, is not an interested party to challenge this sole-source award to an Alaska Native Corporation under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) program.